Should same sex marriage be banned?

No, but even their arguement is flawed. Before even thinking about banning same sex marriage, they should first ban divorce. I would think that divorce is the greater threat to the "sanctity of marriage".
 
[quote name='evilmax17']No, but even their arguement is flawed. Before even thinking about banning same sex marriage, they should first ban divorce. I would think that divorce is the greater threat to the "sanctity of marriage".[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']No, but even their arguement is flawed. Before even thinking about banning same sex marriage, they should first ban divorce. I would think that divorce is the greater threat to the "sanctity of marriage".[/QUOTE]
my thoughts exactly
 
Wouldn't that be hilarious? I'm sorry but you can't get divorced - you must stay together until one of you figures out how to kill the other without getting caught. I'm actually against marriage in general (even though I'm married) but whoever wants to get married should be able to as long as you are 18 - hell, they should legalize polygamy too - who really gives a shit what people want to do with their private lives as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I hope your wife doesn't read what you post, javeryh. ;)[/quote]

She might - I don't know. I mean she could if she wanted to I guess. I should clarify my opposition to marriage though (just in case she is reading :D). I'm not opposed to being married - I love it - there's nothing better than sharing your life with someone who kicks ass, IMO. I'm just opposed to the societal pressure put on people to get married and have kids and how certain types of people are not allowed to participate - there are all sorts of benefits to getting married in our society - tax, estate planning, etc. - and I just don't see why two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to get married regardless of sex. If there were no such thing as marriage I think people would be a lot happier - you could certainly choose to spend your life with one person and I bet a lot of people would do so without a piece of paper that says you have to.
 
They just need to have another step of union. This way the tax etc issues can be done without imposing on the religious aspect of it.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']They just need to have another step of union. This way the tax etc issues can be done without imposing on the religious aspect of it.[/quote]

If you are going to give same-sex unions all the same benefits why not just call it marriage? Separate but equal doesn't work. In 20 years we are all going to look back at theis "controversy" and be appalled that people actually used to think like this - just like previous generations and segregation.
 
[quote name='javeryh']If you are going to give same-sex unions all the same benefits why not just call it marriage? Separate but equal doesn't work. In 20 years we are all going to look back at theis "controversy" and be appalled that people actually used to think like this - just like previous generations and segregation.[/QUOTE]

Its not seperate but equal and I really keep my personal religious beliefs off this board (until I posted this obviously).

The whole reason there is a controversy is due to the religion the gays want to get married under doesnt support their lifestyle.

This country should make all marriages go through the first step of "union" and that would qualify them for all the tax benefits etc... Then at their choice they COULD proceed to the next step of religious union. Which would amount to nothing more than their personal commitment under their chosen religion and another paper.

So that should settle this whole deal. If the gay people want to get to the next religious step then they can. Under whatever religion supports them.

Its not seperate but equal. If anything it makes more work for the people that wanted a religious marriage (gay or straight).
 
[quote name='javeryh']She might - I don't know. I mean she could if she wanted to I guess. I should clarify my opposition to marriage though (just in case she is reading :D). I'm not opposed to being married - I love it - there's nothing better than sharing your life with someone who kicks ass, IMO. I'm just opposed to the societal pressure put on people to get married and have kids and how certain types of people are not allowed to participate - there are all sorts of benefits to getting married in our society - tax, estate planning, etc. - and I just don't see why two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to get married regardless of sex. If there were no such thing as marriage I think people would be a lot happier - you could certainly choose to spend your life with one person and I bet a lot of people would do so without a piece of paper that says you have to.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of your points, but there really is one reason why marriage is the right course: the children. Children with stable parents that are a part of their daily lives will benefit society as a whole. Otherwise, fathers wander off, leaving their kids fatherless. And those children are statistically more likely to commit crimes later in life.
 
Anyone who wants to form a union (marriage) should be allowed to do so. To prevent people from enjoying such a union, because they have a problem with it is utter bullshit. Hatin' on someones love is perverse.

Man, after that sentence I feel like I should smoke a doobie and listen to some grateful dead. (joke.. )
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I agree with most of your points, but there really is one reason why marriage is the right course: the children. Children with stable parents that are a part of their daily lives will benefit society as a whole. Otherwise, fathers wander off, leaving their kids fatherless. And those children are statistically more likely to commit crimes later in life.[/quote]

but fathers (and mothers) are free to wander off as it is now... IMO, being a father has separate responsibilities (including financial ones) and really isn't related to being married (other than working with your spouse as a team in order to raise a good kid).

I'm a husband and a father but if I got divorced tomorrow (and there's nothing stopping me) I'd still be a father and still be responsible for raising my daughter - it really wouldn't factor into a decision of whether to stay married because growing up in a home where two parents fight all the time can't be so great either. I do understand your point though and I agree that it is probably the main reason why the nuclear family is so heavily favored in society. I don't think it's necessarily "right" though - what's right for one person might not be the best for someone else...
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Its not seperate but equal and I really keep my personal religious beliefs off this board (until I posted this obviously).

The whole reason there is a controversy is due to the religion the gays want to get married under doesnt support their lifestyle. [/quote]

I can find churches that support gay marriage for one. Two, marriage as a religious institution varies among all the different religions, and some religions, as a whole, don't really care if homosexuals marry. And, third, civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is the same in the eyes of the law, but has absolutely nothing to do with any religious institution.

This country should make all marriages go through the first step of "union" and that would qualify them for all the tax benefits etc... Then at their choice they COULD proceed to the next step of religious union. Which would amount to nothing more than their personal commitment under their chosen religion and another paper.
Click to expand...

The state can't force you to do anything in regards to your religion. They can't make you go through X before allowing a religion to perform a marriage ceremony.
 
[quote name='javeryh']In 20 years we are all going to look back at theis "controversy" and be appalled that people actually used to think like this - just like previous generations and segregation.[/quote]

Maybe. For the most of history, it hasn't been stigmatized as much as it is in this society. To buy this arguement you have to believe that America is becoming more progressive every day - but every indication right now is that we are in a conservative backslide. Maybe the election will prove me wrong.
 
[quote name='camoor']Maybe. For the most of history, it hasn't been stigmatized as much as it is in this society. To buy this arguement you have to believe that America is becoming more progressive every day - but every indication right now is that we are in a conservative backslide. Maybe the election will prove me wrong.[/quote]

Well, not every day but I think on the whole - I think we are in the middle of the "two steps back" part of becoming progressive as in "three steps forward - two steps back." Only time will tell. I do have hope though.
 
[quote name='camoor']Maybe. For the most of history, it hasn't been stigmatized as much as it is in this society. To buy this arguement you have to believe that America is becoming more progressive every day - but every indication right now is that we are in a conservative backslide. Maybe the election will prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]

I think we're less in a conservative backslide so much as we are in an era in which the world is changing quickly, which makes a lot of people panicky and uncertain, which causes them to cling to the old and dying systems with extra-strong fevor. A true conservative backslide would correlate with higher levels of conservative among young people. Instead, acceptance of things such as gay marriage is MUCH higher among teenagers and young adults.

I do agree that its going to take more than 20 years before society as a whole takes a look back at this period of history and wonders what the hell everyone was so worked up about with the gay marriage thing. Probably more like 30-40 years. In the meanwhile, good and reasonable people need to keep fighting for the progress that inevitable anyway, because the alternative is to make mistakes that will be regretted later.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']Anyone who wants to form a union (marriage) should be allowed to do so. To prevent people from enjoying such a union, because they have a problem with it is utter bullshit. Hatin' on someones love is perverse.

Man, after that sentence I feel like I should smoke a doobie and listen to some grateful dead. (joke.. )[/quote]



Anyone? I don't care if homosexuals or anyone else gets married, but I guarantee you that when gay marriage is legal that there are going to be people who want to legally have multiple spouses, marry underage, etc. How many people for gay marriage will frown on that and become the thing they hate? There is always going to be a uncomfortable level for people no matter how "open-minded" they claim to be.
 
[quote name='Drocket']A true conservative backslide would correlate with higher levels of conservative among young people. Instead, acceptance of things such as gay marriage is MUCH higher among teenagers and young adults.[/quote]

Yet I thought the youth as a whole were fairly conservative. They certainly seem depressed and gullible (more then usual), and the free thinkers are usually drugged to the hilt before they can "cause trouble". Anecdotally, many of the peace protests I've attended contain more 70s/80s era hippies then kids with a cause.
 
Why not simply treat marriage as a contract (which is what it is, anyway)? Simply have the state create some sort of generic version (I pledge myself to you, blah blah blah, you are the person to make decisions for me when I am incapacitated, blah blah blah) to speed things along, but allow people to modify/create their own. That way, all religions would be covered and everyone goes home happy. If multiple people want to enter into some sort of collective marriage (polygamy, for example), then the state should allow them to enter into a contract that has the same legal status as a 2 person marriage. It also encourages people to create a sort of prenup, making divorce a lot less messy and quicker (obviously, if who gets what under what circumstances is laid out and signed by the couple, it makes everything easier).
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Anyone? I don't care if homosexuals or anyone else gets married, but I guarantee you that when gay marriage is legal that there are going to be people who want to legally have multiple spouses, marry underage, etc. How many people for gay marriage will frown on that and become the thing they hate? There is always going to be a uncomfortable level for people no matter how "open-minded" they claim to be.[/quote]

Sure, but I think you can apply a reasonable arguement as to why two consenting adults constitute a different (and more legitimate) relationship then the guy who wants to marry multiple transexual goats.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Anyone? I don't care if homosexuals or anyone else gets married, but I guarantee you that when gay marriage is legal that there are going to be people who want to legally have multiple spouses, marry underage, etc. How many people for gay marriage will frown on that and become the thing they hate? There is always going to be a uncomfortable level for people no matter how "open-minded" they claim to be.[/quote]

Well, sort of - while I'm in favor of polygamy between consenting adults (hey, whatever floats your boat), I think an age limit is appropriate for a lot of things - especially marriage. Either way though limiting marriage to one person and over 18 affects everyone exactly the same (although I can see a weak agrument for the polygamist here) so it's a lot tougher to argue against...
 
[quote name='javeryh']but fathers (and mothers) are free to wander off as it is now... IMO, being a father has separate responsibilities (including financial ones) and really isn't related to being married (other than working with your spouse as a team in order to raise a good kid).

I'm a husband and a father but if I got divorced tomorrow (and there's nothing stopping me) I'd still be a father and still be responsible for raising my daughter - it really wouldn't factor into a decision of whether to stay married because growing up in a home where two parents fight all the time can't be so great either. I do understand your point though and I agree that it is probably the main reason why the nuclear family is so heavily favored in society. I don't think it's necessarily "right" though - what's right for one person might not be the best for someone else...[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong here (and as lawyer you'd probably know better than me) but there's no sort of legal bind saying an unmarried and subsenqunetly undivorced father or mother must, especially financially, support his or her child is there? I suppose maybe one party could take the other to civil court, but isn't child support usually only a result of the legal preceedings of a divorce/civil court? Couldn't someone just walk away from their girlfriend and child and never have to (at least legally) pick up any of the responablities of having had that child? Again I could be way off base here and thinking about it this probably happens daily, but I'm just wondering...
 
Well... I get the church's bitching. Homos are Satan and God doesn't like it.

Thats fits right in with women are the origin of sin and white men are the best thing on the earth. Its really not unexpected.

However, whats the political issue? The sanctity of marriage sounds like an awefully Christocentric term. Its not really the governments job to uphold our morals- just to uphold our laws.

Its illegal to marry a 12 year old. It illegal to have sex with a 12 year old.
If its illegal to marry another (wo)man, how long will it be before its illegal to to have a physical relationship? If a law like this is put into place there are going to be people that push to outlaw being gay.

I can almost understand abortion fanatics. The kid isn't able to defend itself, so they try. (Even though its none of their business.) However, this is two grown (wo)men who are fully cognicent of their actions. Who the hell should be allowed to tell them they can't get married?

Yea, marriage is a joke- but guess what, it was that way a long time ago too. Its not a good idea to get married to a person you've only known for 3 months? Go figure! Theres nothing wrong with divorce, either. Sometimes things change and you just cant fix it. Theres no need to stay together and make everyone misserable. However, with divorce rates so high, it just goes to show you how little people actually get to know eachother before they get married.

[quote name='E-Z-B']I agree with most of your points, but there really is one reason why marriage is the right course: the children. Children with stable parents that are a part of their daily lives will benefit society as a whole. Otherwise, fathers wander off, leaving their kids fatherless. And those children are statistically more likely to commit crimes later in life.[/quote]
:rofl:
Marriage has nothing to do with it. Some people just shouldn't be parents. Being married doesn't magically make you a great parent and being single doesn't make you a poor one.
My GF's parents hate eachother and they're still married. It did wonders for her upbringing. :roll:

Is being married like one of those invisible dog fences? He runs too far and he gets a zap? Are you refering to some legal obligation? My dad had a legal obligation to me and really didn't see fit to follow through.
 
I don't think there's any possibility for adults to succesfully argue for the right to marry 12 year olds. But polygamy is always possible. I don't have an issue per se, but safe guards would need to be in place. For example, ensuring that everyone was aware of the polygamous relationship and approved.

[quote name='camoor']Maybe. For the most of history, it hasn't been stigmatized as much as it is in this society. To buy this arguement you have to believe that America is becoming more progressive every day - but every indication right now is that we are in a conservative backslide. Maybe the election will prove me wrong.[/quote]

Progressive win out in the end. Look at the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Now liberalism was much stronger in the 60's than the 80's, but in which society were liberal ideas more in place? Liberalism often loses the battle, but usually wins the war.
 
does anyone want to get married and let me ride their health bennies until i can land a job.

i can see two male roomates getting married to give the other health insurance and other type benefits not to mention the tax bennies.
 
[quote name='gaelan']does anyone want to get married and let me ride their health bennies until i can land a job.

i can see two male roomates getting married to give the other health insurance and other type benefits not to mention the tax bennies.[/quote]

If that's what people want to do then that's up to them. Considering how the goverment screws people in the ass (no pun intended) on a lot of things, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens OFTEN.
 
[quote name='gaelan']i can see two male roomates getting married to give the other health insurance and other type benefits not to mention the tax bennies.[/quote]

So what? If two roommates (male and female) married for the exact same reason would that make a difference? Should it? Any "reason" to get married is a good one to the two people doing it... I have a friend who married some random girl he knocked up - they didn't even like each other and now they are divorced - big surprise...
 
[quote name='javeryh']So what? If two roommates (male and female) married for the exact same reason would that make a difference? Should it? Any "reason" to get married is a good one to the two people doing it... I have a friend who married some random girl he knocked up - they didn't even like each other and now they are divorced - big surprise...[/quote]

nothing is wrong with it...i never said there was. do you think this type of pro msame sex marriage stuff will spur other groups to lobby aka polygamists and such?
 
[quote name='gaelan']nothing is wrong with it...i never said there was. do you think this type of pro msame sex marriage stuff will spur other groups to lobby aka polygamists and such?[/quote]

Maybe - but I don't think there wouldn't be anything inherently unfair about limiting marriage to one person, over 18 and human becuase this rule can be applied to everyone equally. By limiting the definition of marriage to apply only to the opposite sex you are discriminating against an entire group of people based purely on their sexual orientation.

Imagine the opposite - you want to marry a girl because she's got the most perfect pair of tits you've ever seen AND she can finish Zelda using only the wooden sword but you can't because only men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. That's what it's like and that's just not fair.
 
[quote name='javeryh']
Imagine the opposite - you want to marry a girl because she's got the most perfect pair of tits you've ever seen AND she can finish Zelda using only the wooden sword but you can't because only men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. That's what it's like and that's just not fair.[/quote]

:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that there ought to be a national vote on an issue so blatantly used to be divisive as this. I have a few provisions, of course:

(1) Anyone who has ever been divorced is prohibited from voting on this piece of legislation. If Newt Gingrich, to use one example, could not uphold the vow of fidelity he promised to his first wife, or even his SECOND wife, well, then he's not the kind of person who deserves to decide if marriage is sacred.

(2) Any vote for BANNING gay marriage should also be a vote for eliminating laws permitting divorce (even the old ones, pre-20th century, when divorce was only allowed in cases of the wife's infidelity). If marriage is a sacred bond, then divorce will not be allowed period. Domestic abuse? Cheating on you? Drug, crime, or money problems? 'til death do you part, tough guy. *

*As a result of this law, and in order to restore a modicum of reverence for marriage as a sacred institution, the federal government will hire 150 people to serve as its first "Department of Marital Security." Their task will be to take divorced peoples and reunite them. Second, third, ninth, and any subsequent marriages will be legally revoked, and people will be forcibly placed with their first spouse. Since we want to have respect for marriage, after all, the only way that a person is allowed to get remarried is, of course, if their first spouse dies.

Because marriage isn't just 'one man and one woman.' It's "one man and the first woman he marries, and only her, for fucking EVER." It lacks the bumper sticker pizazz of the 700 Club bumper sticker I've seen, but it's more accurate. Or, rather, it is if you have any respect for the institute of marriage.[/QUOTE]

I've enough posts here that I can probably just quote myself from now on. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've enough posts here that I can probably just quote myself from now on. ;)[/quote]

:rofl: x2

one for the original and one for the quoting.
 
[quote name='gaelan']does anyone want to get married and let me ride their health bennies until i can land a job.

i can see two male roomates getting married to give the other health insurance and other type benefits not to mention the tax bennies.[/quote]

Just like foreigners get married so they can move to the US. Besides your argument applies just as well to straight roomates.
 
If they define marriage as one man and one woman they better include "of non-blood relations." If they don't, I guarantee some cousins...well, you know the rest. :roll:
 
I really couldn't care, thet are not hurting anyone. But I am intrigued on a few things.

1. I would like to know the tax and health benifits will be sorted out. I don't agree with people getting married just for tax breaks and health benifits. And before you say what about forigners marring for citizenship/green cards, I don't agree with that either.

2. I really don't understand why they would get married. Marrage was created to pass down a name and if they don't adopt kids (which I am 50/50 on), what's the point? I mean, do you really need a paper to tell you that you love someone? But hey, if they want to split their possesions and pay taxes on the devorce, so be it.
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']I really couldn't care, thet are not hurting anyone. But I am intrigued on a few things.

1. I would like to know the tax and health benifits will be sorted out. I don't agree with people getting married just for tax breaks and health benifits. And before you say what about forigners marring for citizenship/green cards, I don't agree with that either.

2. I really don't understand why they would get married. Marrage was created to pass down a name and if they don't adopt kids (which I am 50/50 on), what's the point? I mean, do you really need a paper to tell you that you love someone? But hey, if they want to split their possesions and pay taxes on the devorce, so be it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah - haha - who in the blue hell would - hohoho! - want to have health, dental, and life insurance that - heeheehee, get this! - is only available to married spouses through one's employer! What a buncha rubes, Itellsya!
 
Lets go ahead and go along with them and have it banned for now, on the grounds that they wont be able to use it to waste time anymore.

Then repeal it later.
 
Yea, it is rather amazing how we've got a war going on, gas prices rising, monsterous national debt, cuts to all forms of education and tax cuts for the rich... Yet the only thing congress wants to spend their whole month in office talking about letting boys poke eachother in the butt with their weiners.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I could be wrong here (and as lawyer you'd probably know better than me) but there's no sort of legal bind saying an unmarried and subsenqunetly undivorced father or mother must, especially financially, support his or her child is there? I suppose maybe one party could take the other to civil court, but isn't child support usually only a result of the legal preceedings of a divorce/civil court? Couldn't someone just walk away from their girlfriend and child and never have to (at least legally) pick up any of the responablities of having had that child? Again I could be way off base here and thinking about it this probably happens daily, but I'm just wondering...[/QUOTE]


Yeah, you are wrong. A parent has financial obligations to the child regardless of marital status.
 
The religious input should be ignored in this debate ...I think it should be banned.
My reason why is because I think that marrige is set up to link 2 people and encourage a family .
A gay couple cant make a child on there own.


2 same sex people getting married is like cutting a corner .

I guess the concept of ignoring love to talk about marrige is pretty hard to grasp but I think people should concider it.
People dont always get married for love.

I got nothing against gay relationships or gay people.

two friends who arnt gay could cheat the system in the future it could become a problem.
 
[quote name='Skelah']The religious input should be ignored in this debate ...I think it should be banned.
My reason why is because I think that marrige is set up to link 2 people and encourage a family .
A gay couple cant make a child on there own.[/quote]

You make a great point! I hadn't noticed that the world was dangerously under-populated! Will somebody please think of all the rainforests that still haven't been transformed into cow pastures!
 
As a gay man myself (suprise there if some haven't read a few other posts), it would be nice to have that option to get married if I so desired. I just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen. I just think its really fuckin retarded that everyone is so up in arms over this, yet probably half these people bitching that marriage is a "sacred" thing are probably on at least they're second marriage. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
 
[quote name='Skelah']The religious input should be ignored in this debate ...I think it should be banned.
My reason why is because I think that marrige is set up to link 2 people and encourage a family .
A gay couple cant make a child on there own.

[/QUOTE]

Okay then that means, infertile couples and eldery couples shouldn't get married either. Because there is no way for them to have kids. Or you are simply wrong. Marriage isn't only about kids, if it is, your marriage will most definately be fucked up. It is about 2 people.Period.

As for your other point. 2 opposite sex friends could "cheat the system" right now and it is not a problem. In fact, outside of Three's Company, I hardly think people will go around pretending they are gay for some supposed benefit.
 
[quote name='Skelah']The religious input should be ignored in this debate ...I think it should be banned.
My reason why is because I think that marrige is set up to link 2 people and encourage a family .
A gay couple cant make a child on there own.


2 same sex people getting married is like cutting a corner .

I guess the concept of ignoring love to talk about marrige is pretty hard to grasp but I think people should concider it.
People dont always get married for love.

I got nothing against gay relationships or gay people.

two friends who arnt gay could cheat the system in the future it could become a problem.[/QUOTE]

You really overestimate your intelligence, kiddo.
 
Gay Couples should be allowed to marry, raise kids, etc. It sickens me to see the gov't trying to ban this when we have bigger issues out there...
 
[quote name='DJSteel']Gay Couples should be allowed to marry, raise kids, etc. It sickens me to see the gov't trying to ban this when we have bigger issues out there...[/QUOTE]

The focus on same sex marriage is what's supposed to stop you from thinking about the bigger problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top